Rossini in the Black List
  • Anhaga
    Posts: 55

    I found a statement that "all of Rossini's compositions should be excluded from Catholic choir"(The Black List).  I wonder, then, what made all of his compositions enlisted in the black list and how some of his works, such as the Rossini Propers, came back into use.

  • Richard R.
    Posts: 683
    Different guy, Carlos...
  • Anhaga
    Posts: 55
    Thank you for the very quick response!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    How is this blacklist viewed today:

    1. By Rome
    2. By the USCCB
    3. By CMAA
    4. By members of this forum
  • Poor Gioachino! Carlo gets a quick reprieve!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    I just looked at the first movement of gioachinos stabat mater. It is very operatic and I can see why it was blacklisted.
  • Anhaga
    Posts: 55
    Thank you for all the responses. They helped me better understand the Church Music. I have more questions on "The Black List".

    1. Is it the same reason - operatic - why the Ave Maria's of Bach-Gounod and Schubert were blacklisted? I know someone who is planning to use Schubert's Ave Maria for Sunday Mass.

    2. I found "St. Basil's Hymnal (All editions to date, December, 1946)" was also blacklisted. And I have a "St. Basil's Hymnal"(40th edition) published in 1953. Then, what is the status of the hymnal published after 1946?

    3. Is "The 1922 Black List" still mandated? A CMAA link under "Historical Archives" reads that "1922 Black List (archival purposes only)" which sounds like it is not canonically effective anymore.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Oh, not in any way. This is just a historical curiosity -- and very curious it is! William Mahrt says that many of the white list pieces are re-written versions of the black list pieces, and nearly all the white and black are completely forgotten today, and it's not such a bad thing either.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    That black list should be ignored. Not that it's at all wrong, I might agree with much of it. But we have bigger fish to ban (or is that a mixed metaphor?) than G. Rossini.
  • Anhaga
    Posts: 55
    In the flood of publication, the black list might help controversial music more popular in the media war, which was not the intention of the black list. It is always a better strategy to put more focus on what we need to say 'yes' to.

    I guess, however, the status of the black list is similar to "the Index of the Forbidden Books" which was dissolved in 1966 but still retains its moral force. I would cautiously avoid using the blacklisted music in liturgy, even though some of them became white-listed later, not inviting any possibility of confusion or debate.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    One can easily see why a list like that can be formulated.
  • JDE
    Posts: 584
    Charles Gounod's music is also banned. He even made it into the Catholic Encyclopedia for his theatricality. No matter how much you might like to hear your local tenor soloist warble his way through the Sanctus from the St Cecilia Mass, it's just not liturgically appropriate.

    Sadly, I can say the same for all the mass settings I wrote before I got involved with you chant freaks! It's as if I went to sleep next to one of the Pod People . . . and now I hate to play the piano in church.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    the CMAA only includes that "black list" for archival purposes
  • The Black List would have been more effective if it andthe White List had not come from a publisher....who for some reason dominated the White List...things do not change, even when you change your name to just initials. This is how I remember it...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    Apart from who published the list, or what composers are on the list, it is not difficult to rank the appropriateness of music as befitting the liturgy. Heck... Mozart, (his 'sacred' music) is more times than not more fitting for the theatre than the altar.